User talk:Robdurbar/Archive 2

Adminship nomination
Hey Robdurbar, I've accepted and answered the three questions at Requests for adminship/ProhibitOnions. Here goes... Regards, ProhibitOnions 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology...
But it wasn't you that did it. :) It was another anon IP who went through and took out all of my genre changes. If you did accidently take some out, they were so tiny I didn't even notice. --69.145.122.209 19:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
peace :) --Striver 12:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Robdurbar
I am Diego Dabrio, a new wikipedian. You welcomed me yesterday, and this way you became the first real human being I contacted through the Wikipedia. Thank you. I am from Madrid, Spain, and therefore my english is not as good as if I were a native english speaker. I have tried to "create" a new article translating the german version into english (my german is extremely poor, but where there is a will, there is a way). I do not know if this is a common way to make new articles (although I imagine it is very common to translate from english into a different language). Will you have a look at it and correct it, please? I also have a problem with the picture's copyright (they want to delete it in a week!!), but I got the picture from the german version of the Wikipedia, so I don't think the copyright is a problematic one at all. And I can't make links between the german and english version...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_142       my (english) version

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_BV_142       german version

I hope you don't mind the subject (I'm not a Nazzi), I just love aircaft and the english and american ones already have wonderful articles in english.

Thank you very much in advance, Robdurbar.

Thank you very much...
...for correcting all the mistakes you found (and so quickly!). I am not likely to make the same mistakes again, for I'll follow the Wikipedia instructions more strictly from now on.

I joined as a wikipedian couple of days ago, but I've been using the Wikipedia for a few months. I had just made some minor changes before (spelling, easy links...) wich, anyway, were enough to learn a bit about editing... Don't think that I entered the Wikipedia for the first time one evening and decided to make an article about a virtually unknown plane right in that moment!

All your tips and suggestions are welcome: it is easier to learn when someone explains something to you personally. In fact the only problem about Wikipedia is that the "nutshell" and "policy" pages are so boring... ;)

Thank you again. And LOOK >>>>> Dabrio 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that its a biggie
But your "neuteral" as per above to striked out and changed to support votes is kind of funny. The only one above is "maybe later" which just seems a little odd -- Tawker 05:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, I just thought you'd like to know, and I have to be honest, I found it a little funny when I saw it (seeing all of the changed votes) Thanks for the clarification by the way. If this one falls through the cracks, (and I don't terribly mind if it does, it just means another fun week of questions in 4-40000000000000000 (yes, the 0's are a joke) months or so) nothing really changes, I just get to bug someone else when I need something :) -- Tawker 08:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for welcoming me onto Wikipedia! I'm looking forward to being of use (somewhere, at some point). Bit busy at the moment but I look forward to contributing more seriously in a few months time.

Cheers

JH1977.

Doh!
Doh! Me again. Suddenly realised what you meant about the four tildes. Here goes: JH1977 20:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My successful RfA, thanks to you...
Thanks again for nominating me, Robdurbar. I've been accepted with a vote of 58/2/0. It's not quite Clown's high score but I was gratified by how many cool and experienced people voted for me. Now I have to figure out all this admin stuff; I blocked one anon vandal already but otherwise I think I'll take it slowly.

BTW, your edit count and contributions are certainly respectable enough, but more importantly you live in Durham... Have you given adminship any thought yourself? Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

FYROM or Republic of Macedonia
The talk page is getting huge and probably you didn't notice the responses that had been given on this by User:E Pluribus Anthony below at the "Reply" section. Although I used to disagree, I feel there is no more choice about that. You are welcome to vote as it already is. I'm sure you'll definitely find an option (out of NINE already) that approximates your decision. Regards. N i k o S il v e r   (T) @ (C) 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! That has been suggested too! (see the end of it where it turns into a blog). You are welcome to carry out this task. Along with the poll, I think you need to leave the positions of the two main opposing sides (brief/extended).   N i k o S il v e r    (T) @ (C) 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are a hero for pulling this off. I think we need to add back the positions, though. Or would you think it's better to change the internal links (used everywhere) to Archive 9? (did it already and asked the opposing side to do it also)   N i k o S il v e r    (T) @ (C) 23:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

DPT
I apologized to you on WP:AE, and again here. I appreciated your edits. Septentrionalis 22:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your spoonful of advice, well loaded with sugar as it is, is worth considering.


 * I'm not sure that the article will be fixed in six months; Ultramarine drove away editors before I ever got there, and he has a repetoire of specious quotations to back himself up. I am annoyed with him in part because I am used to trusting fellow editors' accounts of their sources, and his can't be trusted. Unfortunately, it takes access to a university library and reading tons of papers even to see what his distortions are. Septentrionalis 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But since he seems to be leaving the article alone, I will also. Enjoy. I look forward to seeing the NPOV version, written in clear and grammatical English, that will emerge in some months time. Septentrionalis 20:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Neologisms
Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 01:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf
This article was unprotected without much reason and the revert wars seem to be coming back. Could you keep an eye on it? AucamanTalk 05:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup hosts
Thanks for the compliment... I planned on wikilinking the WCs after I had inputted all the info, but thanks for catching me anyway :) — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 07:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I delinked it because (1) I'm not a fan of red links, and (2) FIFA World Cup is still up for FA status, and reviewers are looking to scrutinize anything. Then again, this is only an article to be expanded upon. By no means is it complete. As we get more information about each World Cup, we may then look into making an article for FIFA World Cup 1942. Thoughts? — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

World Cup tiebreakers
You're probably right at this point that the template is useless. I created it back during qualifying so as to have a standard text to put up on each qualifying page as well as for the final. Although I could've sworn that last time I looked the final tiebreakers were the same as the qualifying tiebreakers, it now seems you are correct in putting GD ahead of head-to-head; as such it's pretty likely that the template can be replaced by actual text. Jonpin 10:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

English national football team
O RLY?  Will  ( E @ )  T  17:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * dont just rv for the hell of it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by American champagne (talk • contribs)

British/English
Hi, I see you agree with me that we should generally use British for English people. There was a campaign by some users to completely eliminate British a few months back which I objected to but I got bored with resisting them. I definitely think people who have significant non English ancestry tend to use British not English as you pointed out on Keira Knightley (I argued the same on Ian McKellen). Arniep 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks for welcoming me to wikipedia. Reubensutton 18:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgot my tildes there. :D

thanks re RFA
Hi Rob, thanks v much for your support for my RFA. It looks a bit close, but I might make it :) --BrownHairedGirl 17:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Talk Page British Isles

 * Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral.

The important words here are strictly and neutral. One cannot simply change modern usage of English as spoken in the archipelago which is what the discussion in the talk page was about. Changing the accepted definition of British was not neutral. One often has to elaborate on a point in order to delineate it further. Elaboration should not and would not be considered as chit-chat.

As previously outlined there is ambiguity and confusion in the UK and Crown Dependencies concerning the nomenclature of the archipelago. It is therefore necessary to discuss the actual term British Isles; it is entirely debatable as to whether the article should even exist under that nomenclature. Iolar Iontach 13:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom
Can you please confirm that it was you who introduced that instruction at the top of the UK introduction, because frankly I cannot be bothered trailing through thousands of edits trying to find the diff. As I recall it you introduced it with zero discussion, let alone consensus. Since then the intro has changed beyond recognition, so it has clearly not been successful. --Mais oui! 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've responed on your talk page. But no it wasn't me who introduced it thank you very much. --Robdurbar 19:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Durham/Geography
Hi there. No, I didn't study Geography at Durham - I actually did History and Politics (Joint Hons). I finished at Durham in 2003, but graduated in 2004 (long story)... I've got into town planning in a rather backwards way - I was in telecomms first, not the other way round, which is more usual. I contracted for Orange for a year, then ended up working for my present employer, a small town planning consultancy specialising in telecomms planning (partly because I already knew many of the staff from previous jobs). I am not a qualified town planner, but I may end up going into surveying eventually if I do a professional degree. Cheers, DWaterson 09:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Category Deletion
Please visit and weigh in! N i k o S il v e r  (T) @ (C) 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
I actually knew how to sign already, but knowing me, I probably forgot to do it somewhere :) His Ryanness 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
Just to let you know the format to use is #REDIRECT Page Name rather than REDIRECT#Page Name. -- Fr a ncs2000 23:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, I don't mind fixing them... ;-) -- Fr a ncs2000 [[Image:Gay flag.svg|25px| ]] 23:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks
I appreciate your sensitivity to this issue (one to which I have not been duly sensitive in the past). I feel justified in calling Wikima's edits vandalism using the following definition from Vandalism:
 * Official policy vandalism
 * Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism.

Feel free to comment further on my talk page, and thank you for your gentle tone. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 00:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Warrington Link Line
Hey, could you please tell me a bit about the "Warrington Link Line", as I can't find any ref to it. I've tried on Google's railway entusiasts groups but they've never heard of it, and I'm thinking of setting an article up about it. I know it was a bit ago when you added it to the railways of Northern England template, Thanks DannyM 13:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, sorry if it sounded like a telling off (trust me it wasn't, it had Warrington in it and as a Warringtonian I was intrested) :D. DannyM 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tenebrae (film)
Yes, they should all be blocked. All of them should be already, if you check the block logs of each of the users. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:RfA
I accept this nomination. Please be patient in waiting for me to answer the necessary questions as I am planning to give a lot of thought to them. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have posted my nomination for discussion. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain island
Hi. Do you have an authoritative reference for the surface area of the island of Great Britain (excluding all outlying minor islands)? It is listed as 83,698 mi&sup2; (which I think you placed) in the British Isles article, but is listed as 84,400 mi&sup2; in the Great Britain article. Thanks. Polaron | Talk 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was just trying to reconcile the differences. I'll probably just try the library. Polaron | Talk 13:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep
I'm pretty sure it won't be delted anytime soon. You do more work in it than I do, so you should give yourself a pat on the back. And I'll be here for a while still, so don't worry about it. :) I've taken a liking to that page. --69.145.123.171 20:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Adminship nomination for Siva1979
Thanks, guy. I knew Siva could do it. Cheers!-- 陈 鼎 翔    贡献  Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome
Thank you very much for your welcome to Wikipedia. Is it just a happy coincidence that my first article is about Gordon Manley, who spent much of his academic career at Durham University, which I see is your own college?

JH 18:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Come back!
I can't do it on my own, man! We need you to watch over you-know-what-page! ''' 69.145.123.171 Hello! ''' Friday, June 23, 2006, 02:47 (UTC)


 * Ouch... Sorry to hear that. :(  69.145.123.171 Hello!  Saturday, July 1, 2006, 17:59 (UTC)

Barnstar
I know you're somewhat unable to edit at the time, but this is long overdue: for the amazing work you've done on the List of Best Selling Musicans page (I.E., bringing it from no consensus to speedy keep in AFD), I award you with the Barnstar of Diligence!--69.145.123.171 01:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this is the second barstar I have ever given, so you know you really deserve it!

Orphaned fair use image (Image:JamesBluntTo Trains.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:JamesBluntTo Trains.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 10:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

England national football team
I would just like to bring to your attention, that the england portugal "rivalry" that you removed, stretches beyond one game. Philc TECI 21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeh I agree its not a rivalry, thats why I didn't re-add it. Philc TECI 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah it's cool, I expected that you would assume I was opposing you. I would've done the same. Cheers! <font color="Green">Philc TECI 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

British Isles
I am puzzled by your confusion over Irish attitudes to the claim that Ireland is part of the British Isles, and your impression that that view is not widespread.

Among those who reject the contention that Ireland is part of the British Isles are
 * The President of Ireland and all her seven predecessors;
 * the current Irish government (Fianna Fáil and Labour);
 * all past Irish governments for decades;
 * the opposition Fine Gael party;
 * the opposition Labour party;
 * the opposition Green party;
 * the opposition Sinn Féin party;
 * the opposition Socialist party;
 * In other words, 166 TDs out of 166.
 * parties without parliamentary representation, including the Christian Principles Party, Republican Sinn Féin, the Socialist Workers Party, the Democratic Alliance, etc.
 * RTÉ;
 * TV3;
 * All Irish radio channels;
 * The Irish Times;
 * The Irish Independent;
 * The Sunday Tribune;
 * The Sunday Business Post;
 * All the tabloids (even the British tabloids, when publishing their Irish editions remove any claim that Ireland is part of the British Isles).
 * The regional newspapers;
 * Village Magazine;
 * In Dublin magazine, and numerous others

Those who insist that Ireland is part of the British Isles are
 * The Conservative Party (two branches of the UK Conservative Party with less than 100 members between them)
 * The Sunday Times – largely because it runs articles to provoke, and few issues are as consistently provocative as insisting that Ireland is part of the British Isles;
 * Ireland on Sunday (part of the Express group)
 * The Daily Mail (Irish edition) – though it has stopped using the term lately.

The Sunday Independent, in one of its deliberately provocative articles, called Ireland part of the British Isles. It withdrew the claim because of the criticism.

From my experience those who regard Ireland as part of the British Isles amount to no more than 20%. Even among them, a majority, while believing that Ireland is part of the BI, would prefer if the claim was not made because it is seen as provocative and used only to cause offence. When a minor minister used the term some years ago it was only because her script writer had written it and she simply read out the script. (Síle de Valera no more believes that Ireland is part of the British Isles than Ian Paisley believes that the Pope is vicar of Rome. She holds famously extreme republican views. It was purely a case of someone delivering a script without reading it and only realising as she said it that a term she personally takes high offence at, was in it.) She went ballistic afterwards. The civil servant who used that term was severely criticised within the department for what was seen as a major faux pas. Where the term slips past a copy editor in a newspaper the newspaper's Letters to the Editor column is usually jammed the next day with complaints.

In reality, Irish complaints about the term on WP are mild compared to the real view of the average person. Its usage causes massive offence. (Not to me, BTW. I am simply trying to stop the article from causing offence to the vast majority of Irish users. Some users, particularly ThankunColl and Feline1, seem not merely intent on causing offence but are going out of their way to do so. Some of their comments on various pages about Irish people in general are blatently rascist.) The Irish view is simple: post 1922 there is no name for the archipelago. The old name used for the whole of the archipelago pre-1922 is now used to describe the rest of the archipelago minus the Republic of Ireland. (Prior to a constitutional change in 1999, it was the rest of the archipelago minus the island of Ireland.)

Any statement in the article that the term British Isles has no meaning but geographic (ThankunColl keeps putting that in) is pure bunkum. (It is like saying that when people say Palestine they are speaking purely geographically. Or when someone calls a Canadian American they too are being purely geographic.) Thousands of sources use it in non-geographic ways. And any statement of fact that BI is the universally accepted name of the archipelago is similarly wrong. It is the accepted name for most of the archipelago. The issue of Ireland is widely disputed not just by Ireland but also by other sources (in academia, for example, people increasingly write The British Isles and Ireland). And current edit warring right now on the article is nothing compared to the edit warring that will occur indefinitely every time an Irish user joins WP and sees that the BI article in the way ThankunColl seems to want it written. Not alone are those edits factually incorrect and agenda-pushing, they are guaranteed to trigger off edit wars. If the article was to be left that way (which it won't be by Irish wikipedians) it could expect edit wars daily from new editors in Ireland and the US. Irish users have deliberately not stated that Ireland isn't in the British Isles, merely that it is a matter of dispute. The problem has been the fundamentalism of one or two users who cannot accept any NPOV qualifications and who demand that the article must state as fact things that are widely disputed (with those various users who try to add in carefully worded NPOV qualifications being subject to what are simply rascist taunts).

The best of luck with trying to create a fair and balanced text. That is what I want to see too. I don't want it to state as fact anyone's views, certainly not Ireland's opinions as facts. All I and other Irish contributors want the article to so is recognise that not everything is clearcut and black and white and that there are some areas where some people have different definitions of the same term and where it is applied to. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 19:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest I have never heard of a single person in Ireland suggest that the British Isles is an outmoded term. The only issue is the widespread (indeed practically consensus) belief that the constitutional changes in the relationships between the entities on the archipelago in 1922 means that the achipelago no longer can be described with what is seen as a geopolitical, not geographic, term. The attitude is simple. Post 1922, the term is no longer applicable to the full archipelago but to the archipelago minus Ireland. (People are more than happy to have a new term coined for the full archipelago. It is just that none has come into being yet). BTW I do know from friends in Scotland that whereas most Irish people have a problem with the application of the term to Ireland, an increasingly number of Scottish people have a problem with the term because they see it as "outmoded, inaccurate and dishonest" (the words of a MSP). That is a different issue to the Irish one, which is simply one of application, not implication. BTW I don't know if you are having problems with WP right now. I am having major problems. Saved pages don't save. Previews are saved, and earlier on today one save took 18 minutes!!! So I am being caught up in all sorts of edit clashes, and apart reverts that aren't intended as reverts but end up being recorded that way. It is driving me up the wall. I can access the rest of the net in seconds, but I have been trying to open another page on WP for 12 minutes. And setting up a disambiguation page for Lord Chancellor took so long I went on a toilet break, out to have a smoke yet when I came back the page still hadn't saved. (God knows how long this page will take to save.)  FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 23:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. That version is littered with inaccuracies and contradictions.


 * 1) It stated that BI is a "term used". That is not so. It is a term sometimes used, whose usage is controversial and declining. (BTW the reason for that decline is because in the past neither Britain nor Ireland showed any particular sensitivity to each other. That changed in the 1980s with the Anglo-Irish Agreement - when the two governments found themselves working together and so beginning to understand each other's touchy topics - but in particular from the mid 1990s, when with the Belfast Agreement a very close relationship developed, and with that a close understanding. Both sides adapted their language to take into account what each side judged as offensive. So the UK stopped talking about Éire while the Republic openly recognised the cultural and historical links between both states, such as now commemorating Irish men who died in the British Army, having President Robinson meeting the Queen - who in a break with tradition had the visit described as the "visit of the President of Ireland", a title never used before by the UK, etc -  having royals visit the Republic regularly - the Countess of Wessex has just left after a visit, etc. As part of this rapproachement Britain began to realise the offence taken in Ireland to the term "British Isles". Blair asked his civil servants to minimise its usage and look for an alternative where possible.)
 * 2) Saying that it is used to describe an archipelago is false. Some people use it to describe the whole archipelago. Others use it to describe part of the archipelago. It is wrong to state as fact that it refers to all of it when it is not always used that way, and that usage is controversial. I deliberately rephrased it (though as usual souza and TharkunCull reverted) to allow for both definitions, by stating that the term is used by different people to mean some or all of the archipelago, and that the British Isles can be understood to include none, some or all of the island of Ireland. That deliberately does not say which definition is right, just that there are two different definitions used.
 * 3) Saying it is traditional usage to describe a set of islands including the island of Ireland is inaccurate. What is meant by "traditional" and what time frame it was used in that context needs to be explained, ie., the term, which may once have been exclusively geographical evolved into a geopolitical, historical and cultural term, reflecting the fact that the BI were largely coterminus with the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The divorce of the UK and the Irish Free State made BI's geopolitical terminology problematic, leading to a redefinition in Ireland of the term BI to imply the archipelago minus Ireland. Britain itself is now more sensitive to that issue. Both the BBC and ITV no longer use the term in their bulletins if at all possible.
 * 4) Stating the geographic boundaries of the archipelago, by implication attempts to define the boundaries of the British Isles. As I mentioned, those boundaries are disputed.
 * 5) Stating "The term is used in geographical and ecological contexts, but . . . " implies that they are the correct meanings but that other wrong meanings evolved also. WP cannot say which is wrong and which is right without breaching NPOV. We have to state that while its origins were primarily geographic and ecological, the fact that the archipelago largely though not exclusively coincided with the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland meant that BI evolved a set of geopolitical, cultural and other meanings. The fact that both states divorced and no longer stare the same geopolitics and culture has, in the view of some, made the continued use of British Isles controversial.
 * 6) Stating "In the Republic of Ireland it is sometimes assumed that the term British Isles" is POV. An assumption may be wrong, and the opening statement about how BI means the entire archipelago implies the Republic's assumption is incorrect. We cannot state or imply that under NPOV. Nor is it a case of "sometimes". As I mentioned above, it is so widespread as to be a consensus viewpoint. A more NPOV would be "The Republic of Ireland generally argues that term BI does not include the Republic itself." That wording was corrected. Again, in pushing their POV, souza, TharkunColl et al reverted it to their own POV-pushing wording.
 * 7) The following is also incorrect. Because of the complexity, many bodies avoid describing the Republic of Ireland as being part of the British Isles. Saying that they avoid describing it as such implies that it is, just that they dare not say it. They don't say it because they do not believe it is, which is something totally different.


 * The problems mentioned above all are based on a set of false assumptions:


 * There is a single correct meaning of British Isles;
 * It is a geographic term;
 * A segment of Irish people, for their own reasons, choose not to use the correct term.

None of those assumptions are correct. There is no single agreed correct meaning. It is clearly way more than a mere geograph term, and Irish people don't use it because they believe it is wrong, not because they choose not to use the correct term.


 * The same three or four users have been pushing this spin in edit after edit, removing any edits that clash with their supposed facts, and then accusing any Irish person who edits the article of pushing some dastardly anti-British Irish Nationalist spin. Far from being anti-British, many of us doing the edits are regularly accused by Irish Republicans of being "pro-British". The tone of some of those on the British Isles page making such attacks was set by one editor who used his page to make snide personal attacks on Irish contributors using the Irish Famine. How anyone would use something in which hundreds of thousands of people died as a means to abuse other users is beyond me. That is one of the reasons why Irish users went ballistic. Many of us, though unhappy with many of the edits on the British Isles page, had avoided going to it until we say blatent agenda-pushing, coupled with anti-Irish attacks, made by people I can only describe as rascist bigots. Others who glanced at the talk page and elsewhere said that they had never seen such naked sectarianism. The irony is that the Irish users being attacked, as others well know, are regularly attacked elsewhere by Irish Republicans as being "pro-British".


 * OK. Gone on too long again :) The above reasons are why I was very unhappy with the edit you mentioned. The implicit bias may well have been unintentional, but that version of the article did read in a way that basically dismissed issues over the definition of BI. The problems can be fixed simply by minor changes in wording. However every time an Irish user does that TharkunCull, souza or Feline reverts, accusing those of trying to neutralise paragraphs of pushing a POV, by which they mean toning down the POV they themselves insist the article must have.


 * Thanks for all the assistence. There should be no difficulty in working to create an NPOV article that dismisses neither the British nor the Irish viewpoints on the definition of British Isles. Unfortunately a minority seem intent on making the article push the British viewpoint and either eradicate or ridicule the Irish one. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

'with sprogs, bollix and maybe a possible sock'
''I'm intrigued by that sentence from Talk:British Isles. Is it a common phrase? It's not one I've heard before. What does it mean? --Robdurbar 23:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)'' Well if you were reading the relevant page you should know by now the type of offensive your friends are putting forward, wake up please! MelForbes 23:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful
I know you are trying to help on the British Isles article, and it is appreciated, but can you please stop placing footnotes before full stops and commas? You've done it a third time, which means all the work in fixing them to the standard Wikipedia format will have to be redone yet again. Please be more careful. I know in all the disagreements the location of footnotes is a minor point, but one of my roles on WP is to try to co-ordinate such issues and it is a pad frustrating to keep having to fix articles to follow the standard format only to find them all undone over and over, particularly so when one knows that the person doing it isn't a vandal and is trying to help the article. Placing them before full stops and commas is stylistically wrong, creates a bad impression with many visitors to the site and can cause some line distortions on some forms of some browsers (I don't know why, but some ones then show the comma or full stop out of line with the rest of the text.) If we can't agree on anything else, can we at least get the physical layout right?

Sorry for being a gripe. It is just when I see the layouts mucked up, albeit innocently, once again, my reaction is "for fuck sake. Not again" followed by yet more time wasted fixing everything yet again. Unfortunately I am recovering from a serious illness. The British Isles nonsense is bad enough of a distraction to get me out of my sick bed. It makes it worse when I am the sort of person who against doctor's orders will spend hours fixing stylistic and layout errors.

Regards FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 21:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth are you removing the following paragraph. The term British Isles and Ireland is also used increasingly widely, by among other sources, the BBC on occasion, the publishers Collins,, sport , religion, registered charities, nursing, zoological publications, academia, and other sources.


 * 1) Wikipedia requires extensive use of footnotes as evidence.
 * 2) Users on the talk page constantly demand evidence (then delete the evidence when it is produced)
 * 3) The edit you inserted completely twists the paragraph to mean the exact opposite of what it originally means.
 * 4) Given that it term British Isles and Ireland is becoming widespread, it is important to show that its usage covers everything from broadcasting to sport, religion to medicine, zoology to academia. Removing the evidence of the usage of the term, and replacing it with a garbled, inaccurate, sourceless paragraph cut crudely breaks Wikipedia's own rules on sourcing.

You have been one of the users who have tried to understand the non-British perspective. As a result I cannot fathom why you keep replacing an accurate sourced relevant paragraph with one that is misleading, edited clumsily, and is devoid of the whole point of the paragraph. Many articles have twice or three times as many sources as this one. What is your issue with simply showing the growing usage in a broad range of areas of a term? FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your wikibreak
Thanks very much for your tireless efforts to get the British Isles through a difficult period and on the way to a better balance which accommodates all viewpoints. With any luck general co-operation will continue and when (or if) you return your thoughts to this article it will be a pleasant experience. Have a good wikibreak! ...dave souza, talk 05:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Hi. I was the one who removed the references for "The UK is country". I didn't realise there was a wider debate, thanks for clearing that up. However what do you think? I think it's insane! I live in Northern Ireland and there are a considerable minority who think the UK has no right to claim NI as a part of its territory. However I pay my taxes to Gordon Brown, not the Northern Irish Foreign Minister (if that post existed). Another example, I can join the British Army, but there is no Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh Army to join. At any rate, agree or not, one credible reference is quite enough. Thanks again, Mark83 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, nation is probably better. But then the BBC describes its English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish divisions as "the nations" too &mdash; confusing! I think I'll leave it to brighter editors/more, eh.. "passionate" editors than myself to argue the point(s)!! Regards Mark83 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk organization
(Yesterday I was IPA 64.xx.xx.xx, now User:P64.) I think you are the main contributor to Professional sports league organization and its discussion.

I joined that discussion near the top of the first section simply by using one more colon (4) than anyone else used, above or below, which is clear but it does cause some other problems. For example, with 6 colons now, after reply by User:Mwalcoff who also inserted subheadings, there is a lot of wasted space on my screen, which will increase if I reply with 7 colons.

Rereading that section carefully, I see that you interjected one paragraph 00:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC) using one colon, which bumped the talk part way back to the left margin. Why then and why one colon? P64 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)